On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 16:03 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:10:23PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 14:49 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > > I would like to upload a fixed ganeti package in order to close #613648 > > > (very stupid bug, sorry). Attached are the proposed changes, as [...] > > Why is ganeti changing the permissions of /var/lock at all? (Rather > > than a file within that directory, or a sub-directory if need be). > > That's a bug by itself; however, for stable, I'd rather just fix the > permissions. > > If you think it's better to fix it as to not touch /var/lock, that can > be done, but it'll be a slightly bigger patch.
Let's just go with fixing the immediate bug to start with; at least the permissions it's trying to assign to /var/lock/ are those which it will have by default on a Debian system anyway. Please go ahead with the stable upload. > > > It's a long time since I did a stable fix, so I might have gotten the > > > distribution or the versioning wrong; please let me know! > > > > Looking at the bug log, it appears that this also affects unstable, and > > has not yet been fixed there. Is that correct? > > It has been fixed, as the version in unstable uses /bin/chmod, not > Python's os.chmod. /bin/chmod always takes octal, so chmod 1777 is a > right call. In that case, the fixed versions of #613648 should be updated to indicate that it doesn't apply to the version in unstable; maybe track the "don't touch /var/lock's permissions" as a separate cloned bug? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
